ORDER 1. Applicant has filed this revision petition under section 26(2) of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 against order dated 25.1.2024 passed by First District Judge, Anuppur District- Anuppur (MP). 2. Learned senior counsel appearing for applicant submitted that winning candidate i.e. non-applicant No.2 got 8 votes. Applicant got 7 votes. Issue before the District Judge was regarding validity of three votes, which have been casted in favour of non-applicant No. 2. Learned senior counsel appearing for applicant submitted that as per rule 12 of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Adhyaksh Tatha Upadhyaksh Ka Nirwachan Niyam, 2019, if any mark, sign or writing is made on the ballot paper, by which person who casted vote can be identified then vote is to be treated as invalid. It is submitted that three votes which were marked as Exhibit - C1C, C2C and C3C have been cast, which were having special marks by which caster of vote could be identified. 3. Sealed cover envelope was opened before this Court and ballot papers were also shown to the counsel appearing for the parties. On said ballot paper, in C1C, there is an overwriting in sign 'X'. In second ballot paper C2C, mark used for casting vote was '+' and not sign 'X' and in third C3C, it is argued that mark is made in such a manner that line extends to the end. 4. It is submitted by learned senior counsel appearing for applicant that by all these three marks, the person who has casted vote can be identified. Caster of vote can tell the candidate that he will cast vote in particular manner and he could be identified therefore, secrecy of casting of vote is breached, therefore, election is vitiated. In these circumstances, election petition ought to have been allowed by District Judge. 5. Learned senior counsel appearing for non-applicant supported the order dated 25.1.2024 passed by First District Judge, Anuppur DistrictAnuppur (MP). 6. Heard learned counsel for parties. 7. On going through the ballot paper, it is found that in Exhibit-C1C, there is overwriting in respect of mark 'X'. Overwriting is possible if pen is not working properly and a candidate may do overwriting on the sign. Overwriting will not come within the definition of any special mark, or sign or any written symbol, by which, a person can be identified. Overwriting is possible if pen is not working properly and a candidate may do overwriting on the sign. Overwriting will not come within the definition of any special mark, or sign or any written symbol, by which, a person can be identified. In Exhibit-C2C, '+' sign is made instead of marking it as 'X' and '+' sign cannot be a special symbol. Instead of sign 'X', '+' sign is made on ballot paper. Said sign cannot be said to be a special mark, sign or symbol or writing by which voter can be identified. On going through ballot paper Exhibit-C3C, it is found that there is no line which is extended to the end. Only 'X' mark is there and there is no irregularity or any other special sign or written mark, therefore, there is no merit in the arguments that voters can be identified as they have put special mark, sign or symbol on their ballot paper. 8. No ground has been taken by applicant that to be a valid vote, sign 'X' is to be marked on the ballot paper and not sign '+'. Since, sign '+' has been marked on ballot paper Exhibit-C2C, therefore, it is not a valid vote. In absence of ground, Court cannot suo-motu take cognizance of it. 9. Revision is dismissed.